Chirac dismissed the idea of using NATO forces as international peacekeepers in the area and proposed sending a multinational force to patrol both the Israeli-Lebanese and Syrian-Lebanese borders.And NATO might actually accomplish something, which, in the best tradition of tranzi institutions, would be simply not done.
"For France, NATO has no place in setting up such a force," he said, adding that NATO was perceived "whether we like it or not, as the armed wing of the West in the region".
Sending troops is contingent on "a political agreement that assumes a ceasefire". The agreement "must be negotiated partly by the Lebanese government and Hezbollah and partly between the international community, the Lebanese government and Israel."It would seem to me, a political agreement would be negotiated between Israel and Lebanon, at most *facilitated by* the 'international community' (which is newspeak for the UN and the EU, really) over the dead, tattered remains of Hezbollah.
Words really fail me when I read a supposed head of state suggestign out lout that those cretins of Hezbollah would deserve a seat at any negotiation table. But remember what Khamenei told us about his little chat with Chirac:
We love Hizbullah. I emphasized this in talks with Mr. Chirac, who said he has never called to weaken or disarm Hizbullah, and that on this matter, he is in disagreement with some of his European allies. Hizbullah will remain and will keep its weapons.'s All tere is to it, isn't it?